T/S: Defamer v. Gawker

If you’ve got a model where revenue is tied only to web page views, switching to full-content RSS feeds will hurt, at least in the short term. The problem, I say, isn’t with full-content RSS feeds, but rather with a business model that hinges solely on web page views. The precious commodity that we, as publishers, have to offer advertisers is the attention of our readers. Web page views are a terribly inaccurate, if not outright misleading, metric for attention. Subscribers to a full-content RSS feed are among the readers paying the most attention, but generate among the least web page views.

A reader asking for a full-content RSS feed is a reader who wants to pay more attention to what you publish. There have to be ways to thrive financially from that.

this is a pretty dumb thing to say since what i linked was a concrete example of a print writer doing a lot of research and interviews the old-fashioned way, and explaining one of the things happening that's making it much less possible for writers to put that kind of work in (and, like, get paid for it) in the future.

content that involves doing a lot of research and interviews the old-fashioned way is indeed v valuable and praise worthy - its also represents a tiny fraction of what actually gets published - a lot of what does get published is rewriting w/o attribution other outlets news stories -until the washpost et al cio themselves they should stfu

the reaction is still scary, not from the reporter, he can feel deflated because he's unlikely to make any extra money from the publicity (although the gawker guy would have from a link) but for an editor to think that gawker's way of doing things isn't analogous of internet usage in general. this is what i don't get, it's like the internet operates best in a certain way and then editors expect it to act like it should all be printed out tomorrow and sold in a newsagent

But the problem isn't specifically with the joke itself. It's a sort of generic joke about the executive's unconstrained power that any postwar president could've delivered. You know, it would've been Patriot missiles during the first Gulf War, or jokes about the CIA or Secret Service disappearing people during the Cold War.

i guess my memory could be off, but was there something terribly unconstitutional/comparable-to-secret-assassinations-programs about the use of patriot missiles?

i can remember the war, but not any controversy, and their use doesn't seem to have any relation to "the executive's unconstrained power" (cough healthcare cough) nor be comparable to bad things the CIA did off the books

my guess is pareene was going all out relentless for the zing -- which is exactly what barry obam's "daily show" speechwriters were doing